Reflection on on-screen vs. print reading
By Omar Taky Eddine
Agadir- Have
you ever asked yourself whether you read on-screen the same way you do
on print? For instance, do you think that the process of reading this
article on your computer will be equivalent or different if you read it
on paper? Do you think the platform on which you read changes your
reading speed, motivation, or even your comprehension? In other words,
how exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read?
A
lot of things have changed in our lives since the onset of ICT
(information communication technology), and reading is no exception.
People nowadays spend more time in front of their computers, laptops,
and tablet computers than even before. There is notable evidence that
people in general, and young people in particular, are doing more screen
reading of web-based materials. There are even people who talk about
the coming death of paper-based publications, speculating that one day
all the works will be born digital.
After
all, one can claim that the mere change is in the medium. Well, this
allegation is both misguided and misleading. Researchers and reading
specialists have proved that on-screen reading is absolutely different
from the digital one. The question is whether this dissimilarity has a
positive or negative influence on our reading process. As a matter of
fact, different stances from a number of reading specialists have
emerged so far. Dillon (1994) conducted a study in which he found out
that reading was some 20 to 30% slower from a computer screen than from
paper. Many studies such as the ones conducted by Muter et al, (1982),
Wright and Lickorish, (1983), and many others supported this conclusion.
Accordingly, we can deduce that by the time you will have finished
reading this article on your screen, you could have read more than one
article on print!
In
the same vein, Naomi S. Baron (2011), a professor and researcher at the
American University, came up with different drawbacks of on-screen
reading such as the loss the physicality of the book, multitasking, and
lack of concentration. I partly agree with the professor’s conclusions
for I often tend to find myself bound to stop my reading process so as
to answer a Facebook message or check my email. How often do you check
your Facebook, Twitter, email, or another website while reading
on-screen? In addition to this, the physicality of the book is another
vital trait that is lacking in digitalized texts. Naomi S. Baron wrote
these impressive lines criticizing digital reading: “It’s not a book. It
doesn’t have a smell, you don’t touch it…, you’re plugged into the
internet, you can’t concentrate, it hurts your eyes, and you lose the
beauty of the words behind this screen. Life itself is in hard copy. …
Not this treacherous digitalism, which has permeated our lives and our
reality.”
There
are even researchers, like Nielsen (1997), who claim that “Reading” is
not even the right word to describe how we process hypertexts! He stated
that we rarely read screen pages word by word; what readers do instead
is just “picking out” individual words and sentences. As well, Heppner
(1985) analyzed the results of a reading test displayed by computer vs.
Print and detected that reading performance scores were significantly
better on the print form.
Notwithstanding,
onscreen reading is not that bad! This is not the conclusion I want you
to draw from this article. Recent findings such as the ones conducted
by Bolanos (2009), Mason (2001), and Weinberge (2001) reveal that the
level of comprehension is equal regardless of the form of the text.
In
response to professor Baron’s quotation cited above, I would say that it
is true the screen is not a book, but through the screen one can have
access to countless hyper-books that are for the most part unaffordable.
It is true the screen doesn’t have that unique smell that old books
have, but I do touch my laptop, I can feel it, and I can concentrate. It
does sometimes hurt my eyes, but I still sense the beauty behind the
screen. It is intriguing and it becomes part of our lives, at least to
digital natives’ lives. And who says we can’t highlight or jot down
ideas and comments while reading on-screen. People can now save
their PDF files with their notes and highlights included. No worry about
that!
Furthermore, screen
reading is obviously not something that one can do without nowadays. The
move from the page to the screen is evolutionary and inevitable
according to Ellen (2011). A recent study carried out by the UK
National Endowment for Knowledge has revealed that Fifty percent of
pupils (between the ages of sixteen and eighteen) opt for reading on
screens whereas thirty percent still prefer reading paper books.
Unlike
the first standpoint that criticized on-screen reading, many
researchers in the arena contrarily affirm the positive influence of the
latter on readers. Coiro (2003) described web-based texts as having
three main criteria, which are being non-linear, interactive, and having
multiple media forms. She stated that electronic texts are introduced
with a set of interactive features that are not available in
conventional print. According to her, the hyperlinks encourage readers
to investigate their own path in a nonlinear way that may be different
from the path of other readers. Thanks to the availability of a variety
of electronic texts, students become actively engaged with the text in
ways that are personally relevant to them.
In
the same regard, Grams (2003) investigated students’ motivation in
reading by providing each participating student access to a warless
learning device. He concluded that all students seemed to be reading
E-books faster. Rosalia (2002) also recognized this when she stated that
technology attracts large number of young people. “Today’s students are
the first digital generation fully comfortable with technology as a way
of life,” she says.
In
short, the debate of screen vs. Paper is long and intricate. Broadly
speaking, we can talk about two inconsistent schools of thought. The
first one favors the traditional form of reading texts believing that it
is quicker, healthier, and more beneficial than reading on screens.
Paper cannot and should not be replaced by screens. Contrariwise, the
second school supports digital reading for they believe that young
people are more positive towards it than paper, such as Horton and
Lovitt (1994) and Hallfors et al (2000). There are many more
interesting studies from the tow schools that decidedly deserve to be
scrutinized.
So,
which medium is better? Which medium makes us “smart”? Which medium
should educators encourage? These are very critical questions that need
an answer. Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Richard C. Anderson
(2003), the director of the Centre for the Study of Reading, stated that
studies investigating the quality of comprehension and comprehension
strategies in web-based environment are too limited. Therefore, more
studies should be conducted, and more pedagogical recommendations based on experimental evidence needs to be asserted in this regard.
© Morocco World News. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten or redistributed // http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/10/108151/reflection-on-on-screen-vs-print-reading/
No comments:
Post a Comment